Post on 04-Nov-2020
1
Political Parties and Indian Democracy
I deem it a great honour to deliver the Narla Memorial Lecture to this august
audience. I have never had the privilege of knowing late Sri V R Narla
personally. Born after he attained fame as a writer, journalist and editor, to me he
was a great and distant figure of enormous influence and outstanding ability.
When I read collections of his editorials for the first time I marveled at their
lucidity, forthrightness, passion, and at times poetry. I particularly remember the
joyous editorial written in 1969 when man landed on the moon. It was only in the
latter half of the seventies that I began reading Narla’s works. His literary pieces,
his scholarship, his rational approach to life, his clinical analysis of contemporary
events, his breath-taking grasp of history in all its majestic sweeps, his deep
understanding of human civilization, and above all, his innate humanity made a
profound and lasting impact on me. His essay on ‘poverty of intellectualism in
India’ was an exhilarating and stimulating journey for readers like me. Narla had
the rare insight and courage to state unequivocally that our recognition of Raja
Rammohan Roy in preference to Henri Vivian Derozio as the symbol of
renaissance and Mahatma Gandhi instead of Manavendra Nath Roy as the torch
bearer of national struggle were two classic examples of poverty of
intellectualism in our modern history. Only a great philosopher with exceptional
breadth of vision and command of facts would have the courage to resort to such
heresy, and yet be respected for his wisdom and scholarship, instead of being
condemned as a maverick. His essay on the myth of the divide between the so-
called eastern mysticism and spiritualism, and the western materialism was a
classic. He marshalled the facts of history with extraordinary dexterity and
uncommon acumen; and in the process demolished many prevalent myths about
our past and present. Almost alone among the great journalists of India, he
defied orthodoxy and embraced reason with fierce determination and strength of
conviction. His espousal of causes which were unpopular in the heat of
contemporary events, and yet are remarkably just and fair in the cold light of logic
and the hindsight of history is a great tribute to Narla’s ability to see far ahead of
2
others. Even as I never had the opportunity to meet the great man, I admired
him during his life time and now, as one of the greatest scholars and thinkers of
the Telugu people, and a great journalist of this century in India.
2. By a curious coincidence, years ago I was asked by Justice Avula Sambasiva Rao
to succeed him as the Chairman of Dravidian Philosophical Research Institute,
whose only invaluable asset was the Narla Library. I must admit that my brief
stint as chairman was quite undistinguished, and I can honestly claim that I served
the cause of the institution more by leaving it. Months later I decided to resign
that position in order to help the Library. This seemingly paradoxical decision
had to be taken to enable me to lobby with the government to write off the
arrears due to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority towards unpaid rent and
rescue this invaluable collection of books from the stupidity of government
bureaucrats. In a tragic imitation of the Third Reich, the officials actually had the
temerity to throw out the books in the Narla Library as arrears could not be paid
for want of income. Happily, the government saw reason and promptly waived
all arrears. Eventually the library was transferred to this Ambedkar Open
University. I do hope that the students, scholars and general public appreciate
this unique treasure of knowledge and make full use of it.
Importance of parties
3. I have chosen “Political Parties and Indian Democracy” as the topic of this lecture
with some deliberation. Much has been, and is being, said in our country in
recent years about electoral reforms, federalism, corruption, judicial delays, and
the need for looking for alternatives or improvements to ensure stable and honest
governments. All these issues of our governance deserve close attention and need
to be pursued with great vigour and clarity to safeguard our republic.
However, in all this debate, the role of political parties is rarely discussed, and
their importance is little understood. Whoever said politics is the last refuge of a
3
scoundrel has done immense damage to mankind. Only an ignoramus or a
misanthrope can make a thoughtless remark of that kind, and view all political
activity with contempt. The pejorative use the word ‘politics’ is subjected to in
our country is a sad commentary on the frustration of many ordinary citizens at
the state of public affairs. True politics, however, is about promotion of
happiness and maximizing public good. Accepting the notion that only crooks
and scoundrels are fit for politics is nothing but condemning ourselves to
perpetual misrule, injustice and misery. In any sane society, politics should be
the preserve of the brightest, finest and most humane citizens. Only then can the
future of our children be secure. The attempt to keep polite society and decent
elements out of statecraft by this false notion that politics is dirty is but one
telling illustration of the poverty of intellectualism prevalent in India. Such a
half-baked notion distorts all public discourse, and promotes a culture of whining
and groaning and complaining about governance in India, without doing the least
bit to make things better. As a result of this flawed understanding of public
affairs, high decibel levels, mindless competitive populism, and ultra short-term
gains in the power game dominate our governance process. Most sane and
rational elements are drowned in the flood of irrational verbiage, false image
making, endless distortion of facts, and ceaseless myth-making. The medium has
become the message, and the reality is buried in an avalanche of what is
projected to be the gospel of truth for the fleeting moment. As Mark Twain put it
succinctly, “often a hen that only laid an egg cackles as if she has laid an
asteroid”.
4. Political parties are the arbiters of politics and the nation’s fate in a true sense.
They exercise enormous influence on public discourse. They drown all other
voices literally by the noise levels they generate. They occupy endless newspaper
space and radio and television time. They have a direct impact on public policy
affecting millions of lives. Their espousal of causes, and as is seen more often,
their opposition to policies affects almost all state actions. Their agitations on
real or contrived issues paralyse all economic and social life. We only have to
4
witness a ‘Rasta Roko” or a “Bandh’ or a ‘Hartal’ organized by this party or that
to understand the power of a handful of persons, often armed with sticks, stones
and chains, once they have a party banner in front of them and a slogan on their
lips. Yet the political parties in India are least understood, little-studied and
obscure.
5. Whatever be the origins of various political parties, in the ultimate analysis all
parties are instruments to acquire power, control the state apparatus and govern.
There may be many organizations espousing causes, contributing to public
discourse, or promoting public awareness. But the essential difference between
all such organizations and a political party is the absence of desire and effort to
acquire power. Organizations other than political parties may seek, and
sometimes acquire, influence, but only parties seek, compete for, and acquire
power over state apparatus and control over public funds, government
bureaucracy and legislative mechanism. Politics in most countries in therefore
inseparable from political parties. Even in many authoritarian societies, there are
often strong and influential political parties, albeit state-sponsored, state-
patronised ones with limited or no competition. Only Middle-East sultanates and
unabashed dictatorships banning all parties and political activity are free from the
influence of political parties. Parties are, however, particularly integral to
democratic institutions and practices.
Marginal role of independents 6. It is unimaginable to think of a liberal democratic society without influential
political parties. There is no genuine democracy in which parties do not play a
dominant and decisive role in both elections and governance. The well-meaning
but somewhat naive attempts of idealists to promote partyless democracy have
floundered in all countries, including in India. The heroic efforts and advocacy of
Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan for partyless democracy are a telling illustration
of such an idealistic vision of a democratic society based on free will of individual
citizens without the intermediation of political parties. However, such unalloyed
5
idealism could not withstand the power of organized political parties, and
ultimately failed to take off. Many scholars believe that apart from competitive
elections, the existence of a whole series of intermediate institutions in society
espousing particular political values is critical for the survival of a liberal
democracy. In practice, it is well recognized that electoral political action outside
political parties is almost always doomed to failure. This applies equally to
countries like the United Kingdom with strong and well-organized political
parties and to nations like the United States with very loosely organized political
parties with enormous accent on individual liberty. Even in the US, an occasional
independent like Ross Perot may significantly influence public attitudes on certain
crucial issues for a time, but cannot realistically hope to capture the levers of
power.
7. In India, the number of independents elected to Lok Sabha from 1952 to date
shows their marginal and declining role in our political process over time. While
20(in 1962) to 42(in 1957) independent Members were elected to Lok Sabha
between 1952 and 1967, their numbers dwindled to 1(1991) to 14(1971) after
that. Even more remarkably, while 60% of all independent candidates lost their
deposits in 1957, 99.7% of them lost the deposits in 1996. That means, only 0.3%
of the independent candidates have obtained more that 1/6 of the votes polled in
their respective constituencies. The few, who manage to gather a significant vote
share, and occasionally get elected, are most often party rebels who are denied
tickets, but are supported by a sizeable faction or caste group in the constituency.
Independents Elected to Lok Sabha
Year No. of seats No. of Independents Percentage of Independents Filled Elected Who Lost Deposit 1952 489 38 66.6 1957 494 42 60.1 1962 494 20 79
6
1967 520 35 86.2 1971 518 14 94 1977 542 9 97.2 1980 529 9 98.9 1984 542 5 99.7 1989 529 12 98.9 1991 534 1 99.5 1996 542 9 99.7 1998 542 6 --- 8. Even in States, where Assembly Constituencies are much smaller and local
factors play a much more prominent role in elections, the role of independents has
been limited, and is declining over the years. The data for Andhra Pradesh
Legislative Assembly shows that 1967 saw as many as 68 independents elected.
However, since 1978, the independents are getting elected in much smaller
numbers ranging from 9(1985) to 17(1983). It is well known that almost always
the independent candidates elected to the Assembly are party rebels denied party
ticket. Eventually most independents find themselves in a major party. Rarely did
an independent member mange to get reelected again as an independent
candidate. This shows the power and dominance and control of political parties
in electoral politics and competition for elective public office.
Independents elected to Andhra Pradesh
Legislative Assembly Year No. of Seats No. of Independents elected 1962 300 51 1967 287 68 1972 287 57
7
1978 294 15 1983 294 17 1989 294 15 1994 294 13 Democratic institutions and practices 9. At this point, it will be useful to outline the democratic institutions and practices
as commonly understood in contemporary liberal democratic world. Myron
Weiner has listed four such institutions and practices as follows:
1. Government leaders are chosen in competitive elections in which there are
opposition political parties.
2. Political parties – including opponents of government, have the right to openly
seek public support. They have access to press, freedom of assembly,
freedom of speech and freedom from arbitrary arrest.
3. Governments defeated in elections step down; losers are not punished by
winners; defeated leaders are not punished unless in the act of governance
they have broken the law; their punishment is based on due process.
4. Elected governments are not figureheads, they exercise power and make
policies and are accountable to the electors – not to the military, the
monarchy, the bureaucracy or an oligarchy.
10. Judged by these yardsticks, many countries, while having elections, fail to
qualify at varying periods of time as true liberal democracies (Alan Ware).
Zambia and Argentina had for sometime competitive elections for public office,
but gave unlimited power to elected leaders. In Argentina for some time there was
also limited electoral competition with major political forces banned. In
apartheid South Africa and white-dominated Rhodesia, while there were regular
8
elections, large sections of people were forcibly prevented from participating in
them. In fact, even in the southern states of the United States, the blacks, while
legally permitted to vote, were in practice denied the franchise until the Civil
Rights Movement of the 1960s. In countries like Mexico for decades, and in
Pakistan and Bangladesh often, there was theoritical election competition, but
massive state rigging was practised. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and
Philippines periods of electoral competition are interspersed with
authoritarianism. In Algeria and Burma there was electoral competition but the
winning parties were prevented from assuring office, and are in fact persecuted.
In countries like Iraq some parties exist, with no electoral competition. Erstwhile
Soviet Union, and most of the Eastern European Countries until their adoption of
democracy about a decade ago, had authoritarian communist regimes in which
only one party could control government. China continues to be under an
authoritarian, one-party rule. Several South East Asian countries too have
witnessed limited electoral competition or outright authoritarianism for
decades.
Standards of democracy in India
11. Happily for us, India has consistently upheld democratic institutions and
practices. Except for the dark period of the artificially induced ‘internal
emergency’ declared in June ‘75 and concluded with the defeat of Congress Party
in March ’77, we never wavered in our faith in, and allegiance to, democratic
institutions and practices in the political arena. During that infamous emergency
period there was partial authoritarianism; our civil liberties were suspended,
opposition was jailed, and the life of legislatures was prolonged beyond the term
of 5 years for which they were elected. However, it must be said in favour of
Mrs Gandhi, the architect of that emergency, that she did voluntarily call for
elections, though after the expiry of the natural term of Parliament, and lifted the
curbs on most freedoms. The elections in 1977 were by and large free and fair,
9
and the transfer of power from the defeated ruling Congress Party to the newly
elected Janata Party was peaceful and orderly.
12. However, when judged by more exacting standards of democracy, Indian polity
is flawed in many respects, and political parties have a lot to blame for these
failings. There are five key ingredients of democratic polity viz: freedom, self-
governance, empowerment of citizens, rule of law and self-correcting institutions
of state. Let us briefly examine the performance of Indian polity in the light of
these standards. Freedom, in an elementary sense, is the right of an individual to
do as he or she pleases, as long as his actions do not impinge on the freedom of
others. While the Constitution and law have guaranteed these freedoms in a fair
measure to citizens, in reality freedom is undermined by the unchecked power of
parties to paralyse society at will, to appropriate resources, and to black-mail or
bully citizens and groups. Parties stop traffic, arbitrarily take over properties,
vehicles etc, and resort to violence. These failings of parties, combined with the
institutional maladies including inaccessible school education and primary health
care, delayed justice, unaccountable police, unchecked crime, secrecy in
government and inefficient public services have severely eroded our freedoms
despite constitutional guarantees.
13. Self-governance is the right of citizens to govern themselves directly or indirectly.
Representative democracy means that the elected legislators and governments
should be fully accountable to citizens. However, autocratic political parties,
flawed electoral process, limited and often unhappy choice of candidates between
Tweedledom and Tweedledee, uninformed public discourse, criminalization of
polities, marginalization of citizens and over-centralization have all reduced our
self-governance to a mockery. Empowerment is the ability of citizens to
influence the course of events on a sustained basis and to make meaningful
decisions on matters of governance having impact on their own lives. In effect,
people always continue to remain sovereigns. However, rampant corruption,
hostility to public participation in governance, centralization and secrecy, red
10
tape, and a culture of touts and middlemen with the backing of powerful party
organizations have denied people any meaningful degree of empowerment.
14. Rule of law is the concept of people being governed by law, and all citizens,
irrespective of station and rank, being subject to the same laws to the same extent.
However, centralized and autocratic political party functioning, flawed electoral
system, highly opaque and secretive functioning, ubiquitous patronage system,
VIP culture in every public service, gross failure of public order, primacy of
political agents, influence-peddlers, touts and rabble rousers in government
decision making at the cost of non-partisan citizens, and the tardy and inefficient
justice system make rule of law virtually non-existent in our society. Self-
correcting mechanisms give institutions of state and polity the capacity to learn
from past experience and to constantly improve themselves in order to serve the
people better. Our incapacity to design and operate the institutional correctives
on the one hand, and the moribund party structure incapable of attracting the best
elements of society on the other hand, have made sure that the decline of the
Indian state is progressive and contributed to near-collapse of our governance
structure.
Parties in modern state
15. As can be seen from a less-than-happy glimpse of the malaise afflicting our
polity, the sickness of political parties has a lot to do with our governance crisis,
and the near-collapse of the Indian state. To be fair to Indian political parties,
they are not dissimilar to parties elsewhere as far as their basic pursuit of power
is concerned. As Max Weber printed out, “modern forms of party organization
are the children of democracy, of mass franchise, of the necessity to woo and to
organize the masses, and develop the utmost unity of direction.” Though it is
difficult to believe, parties are expected to uphold certain principles and values in
public life. Though most of our mainstream political parties have long since
forsaken all claims to principled action, their origins are often founded in
11
principle. Parties are also meant to draw the masses into political activity and
perform the function of political socialization. The American presidential election
campaign and the national conventions of major parties, for instance, seem more
like carnivals for political socialization and nation-building, rather than campaign
events in the election of public officials. Parties also bring together disparate
groups of people and a variety of interests, and perform the function of
aggregation of groups and interests. However, Indian political parties are more
like ‘electoral mechanisms’, conforming to Schumpeter’s description as a group
whose members propose to act in concert in the competitive struggle for political
power. As Anthony Downs described, most members join parties “solely in order
to attain the income, prestige and power which come from being in office. They
treat policies purely as a means to attainment of their private ends, which they can
reach only by being elected.” In this mercantile approach to politics and parties,
party labels are merely incidental, and there is little to distinguish most of the
mainstream parties. A few parties indeed have been exceptions to this norm, and
have steadfastly stood for their principles and goals. However, increasingly the
lure of pelf, privilege, and patronage is too strong to resist even for some
communists, as witnessed in States like Bihar, and the Bharatiya Janata party, as
witnessed increasingly in many States, most notably in Uttar Pradesh.
Declining membership
16. Political parties have been declining in their importance and sway over the masses
throughout the western world. An analysis of membership of political parties as
a proportion of total electorate in 11 western European democracies shows that in
general the membership declined significantly in the three decades between
1960s and 1980s. There is no reliable data for the United States, since parties
there are very loosely organized without any formal membership. But even in
the U.S., the decline of the Democratic Party machines in Chicago (Mayor
Daley), Pittsburg and several southern States shows that the power of parties is on
12
the wane. This is accompanied by increasing democratization of parties and the
political and electoral process.
Proportion of the electorate who are party members (As a percentage and by country)
Country First election Last election In 1960s in 1980s Australia 26.2 21.8 Sweden 22.0 21.2 Denmark 21.1 6.5 Finland 18.9 12.9 Norway 15.5 13.5 Italy 12.7 9.7 Netherlands 9.4 2.8 UK 9.4 3.3 Belgium 7.8 9.2 West Germany 2.5 4.2 Ireland ---- 5.3 Source: Richard S. Katz – European Journal of Political Research, 22(1992), 334. 17. It is difficult to assess the membership of political parties in India, and therefore
no definitive conclusion can be drawn on the sway of parties over people.
Congress, the oldest party, still has the largest support base. As Bhabani
Sengupta describes, “It is still the largest coalition of social and economic classes
spanning the entire nation. However, there are no masons rebuilding its house
any more. The leaders need the party only to fight the polls or stay in power”.
Congress is reported to have about 5 crore (50 million) members on its rolls, but
13
with bogus membership and false voting witnessed in the last organizational poll
in 1997, these estimates are wholly unreliable. Similarly, the second largest
Bharatiya Janata Party claims a membership of 4 crores (40 million), and again
there is no reliable data to make a proper estimate. However, one thing is certain.
Over the years, most political parties lost the respect of a vast majority of the
middle and upper sections of society. Among the poor, most people are sullen
and resentful and are not attracted to any party in large members. More often than
not, it is anger against the establishment and rejection of those in power which
motivates the voters. As a result, political parties have long since become the
sanctuaries for opportunists and lumpen elements. The party system works only
for scores of little political dynasties and interest groups, and not for society as a
whole.
Legal plunder
18. Political parties in India have, over the years, failed to articulate people’s
yearnings, represent the citizens, govern the nation, criticise the failings of those
in power, and reform the governance system. Unbridled and irresponsible
populism, knee-jerk opposition to those in power, unbridgeable chasm between
rhetoric and action, endless opportunism, and shameless plunder of the state’s
resources have become the hallmarks of our political system. Spawning a
centralized and anaemic culture, most parties have become the hotbeds of
corruption, crime, intrigue and nepotism. Power has become an end in itself, and
is no longer the means to public good. All that matters is a hand in the till of state,
and an opportunity to indulge in legal plunder and constitutional brigandage.
Once in power by hook or crook, principles, ideology or public opinion are of
little consequence. Appointment of public servants to key offices, transfer of
inconvenient employees, licensing, distribution of patronage in the form of
benefits and subsidies to the poor, public distribution system, government
contracts and tenders, mining licences, permissions to exploit forest produce,
maintenance of law and order, crime control, crime investigation and prosecution,
execution of public works, toll gates – all have become the playthings of party
14
functionaries. The so-called cadres and workers are not enthused by any idealism
except in a few fringe parties, but have become mercenaries who rig polls and
resort to violence at the behest of ‘leaders’, and expect in return to partake in the
plunder and share the booty.
19. The ubiquitous role of the hyperactive, if erratic and often ineffective, Indian
state has accentuated the tendency of parties to degenerate. As the state affects the
lives of a very large number of people, influence peddling and mediation through
party workers has become all-too-common. As Myron Weiner pointed out, the
citizen’s dependence on state for livelihood, inputs in agriculture, permits,
licences, quotas etc., the monopolies of public sector, the VIP quota culture,
needless restrictions on trade and marketing of agricultural produce, state’s role in
almost all public goods and amenities, its control and ownership of almost all
public utilities – all these meant that politics in India is a highly remunerative
profession with little investment and few risks for those who are not unduly
bothered about moral dilemmas, legal niceties and spirit of public service. This
trend is amply illustrated by a brief analysis of the new entrants into politics over
the past three or four decades in the country.
Entry into politics
20. Very few persons with intellect, integrity, commitment to public service and
passion for genuine reform could enter the political arena and survive with
honour. A careful analysis shows that heredity and family connections are the
commonest cause for entry into serious electoral politics. This is closely
followed by those who have large inherited or acquired wealth, and have decided
that investment in politics is good business. In recent years, many local muscle
men, whose services were earlier sought for extortion or vote gathering, are now
directly entering the fray and gaining political legitimacy. A few persons have
entered politics out of personal loyalty to, and close contacts with, those in high
public office. People with very high visibility on account of great success in mass
15
entertainment like sports or films have also been increasingly drawn into the
vortex of politics. Occasionally accidents of fate are pitchforking certain
individuals into elective public office. If we exclude these methods of entry, there
will not be even a handful of persons in this vast country of ours, who have
entered politics with deep understanding of public affairs and passion for public
good, and survived for any length of time over the past four decades. The best
men and women the society can boast of are either prevented or repelled by the
political process, and are rendered incapable of surviving in the political arena.
Predictably, the noble activity of governance, which fell into the hands of ignoble
elements, is now in shambles.
Oligarchic control
21. Even in the best of circumstances, oligarchic control of political process violates
the basic tenets of democracy. Given the Indian governance crisis, the failure of
political parties to operate the governance system optimally for the public good is
leading to catastrophic consequences. The objections to the dominant role of
political parties are quite serious, and need to be examined closely. Permit me to
quote Michael Dummett at some length to illustrate the need for proper
accountability of political parties even in an otherwise mature and well-
functioning democracy.
“We are so used to political parties that we tend to think of them as integral to the
functioning of a democratic system; some of their members feel towards them a
loyalty more appropriate to a religious body. Yet in fact their very existence
infringes the ideal of democracy. They are in essence conspiracies in
accordance with which their parliamentary representatives agree to vote in unison
in order to make more votes go as their individual members wish than would
happen if everyone voted according to his true opinion ….. this function of
political parties is highly institutionalized by the system of whips, and the practice
of expelling from their party MPs who defy them.”
16
“It is obvious that the outcome of a vote is more likely to be the expression of the
general will if all who participate in it vote according to their true opinions than if
some, in collusion with others, vote contrary to those opinions. Such collusion
may nevertheless be advantageous to the voters ( legislators) who engage in it:
that is a large part of the purpose of political parties…….. To the extent that the
member’s true opinions were a sound guide to what would have been for the best,
or to what the electorate desired, the collusion converted the best possible
outcome into the worst possible outcome; but those who engaged in it could
congratulate themselves on a skilful piece of political manipulation. That, in
miniature, is the purpose of political parties.”
“Nevertheless, the existence of political parties is probably an inescapable evil. It
is usually in dictatorships that all political parties, or all but one, are proscribed; a
one party state is of course a form of dictatorship. Uganda is currently
experimenting with a no-party state – a democratic system under which the
formation of political parties is not allowed; there is naturally an accusation that
this gives excessive power to the incumbent regime, and it remains to be seen
whether such a system can be worked without degenerating into a dictatorship. In
normal democracies in which political parties function, they play a large role in
electoral process than is by anyone else’s standard desirable, since they select the
candidates between whom the voters have to choose. Moreover, the power of a
political party to dictate, influence, or interfere with the selection of candidates for
parliament is more inimical to democracy the more centralized it is. If it is in the
hands of a regional office, or, still worse, of the central office of the party, a rigid
conformity to the current party line will result. A local constituency selection
committee may continue over the years to nominate a deviant adherent to the
party, such as Sir Winston Churchill, who disagrees fundamentally with its
prevailing policy, but who would never be tolerated by the central office if it
could help doing so.”
17
22. The above insightful passage is worth quoting at length, since it outlines some of
the major problems a centralized, autocratic party will pose to society. We will
revert to the problem of the whip and party control later while discussing the 52nd
amendment to the Constitution, commonly referred to as the “Anti-defection
Act”. But let us now turn our attention to an examination of the key failings of
most Indian political parties, in respect of membership recruitment, leadership
choice, candidate selection, funding pattern and centralized control. While
specific details vary in respect of each party, in general several common features
can be clearly identified. Whatever be the origins of the parties, their popular
appeal, social base or regional spread, almost all parties conform to the patterns
described here.
Legal status of parties
23. At present there are 7 national parties and 48 State-parties recognised by the
Election Commission. Article 19 of the Constitution accords citizens the right to
form associations. Except this implicit recognition of the right to form political
associations, there is no constitutional or statutory provision regarding formation
and functioning of political parties in India. Election Symbols (Reservation and
Allotment) Order 1968, issued by the Election Commission (EC) under Art 324
of the Constitution, read with provisions of Representation of the People Act
1951 and Conduct of Election Rules 1961 provides for recognition of political
parties. According to this Order, a party could be recognized by the EC as a State
level party and alloted a common symbol for its candidates throughout the State
if it had been engaged in political activity continuously for five years, and had
obtained at least one out of 25 members of Lok Sabha or atleast one member per
thirty members of a State Assembly or had secured not less than 4% of the total
valid votes cast at the election in the State. A party satisfying these conditions in
four or more States is recognized as a national party. The Symbols Order of 1968
has been recognised by the Supreme Court as a self-contained code and can be
treated as ‘one of the important land marks in the evolution of regulation of
18
political parties’ (R.P.Bhalla). The Court upheld the Order in Sadique Ali VS
Election Commission of India. In 1974, the term ‘political party’ was for the first
time mentioned in a law, in the form of the amendment of Section 77 of
Representation of the People Act (R.P.Act), 1951, to exclude expenditure
incurred by political parties from the statement of accounts lodged by contesting
candidates. Later, in 1985, political parties found place in the Constitution
through the 52nd Amendment. Through this amendment, a new Tenth Schedule
was added to the Constitution which disqualified members defecting from a party
in numbers amounting to less than 1/3 of the party’s strength in legislature. In
1989, Section 29A was inserted in the RP Act, 1951 making provision for
registration of political parties with the Election Commission. These are the only
four references – all somewhat incidental – to political parties in the Indian
Constitution, laws and rules. This near complete absence of even reasonable
restraints on the conduct and organization of political parties, which exist only to
seek power over all of us by acquiring control of levers of state, has led to
predictable unhappy consequences. This is particularly compounded in a semi-
feudal society struggling to break out of the shackles of poverty, ignorance,
oppression and illiteracy. The essentially power-centred nature of our society,
which recognises hierarchical dominance and easily accepts it, made the
situation even worse.
Membership
24. It is traditionally believed that the strongly ideological parties like Communists
tend to depend on party cadres, as opposed to the centrist mass-parties which tend
to have open membership. In recent years, most parties in western democracies,
irrespective of their origins, have open membership. Usually any one who signs
an undertaking to the party to abide by its principles and policies and regularly
pays subscription is enrolled as a member. Members are a source of income to
the party and provide a pool of labour for campaigning. They form the basis for
spreading party ideology and policies and programmes. Members, in return are
19
entitled to control of party policy, decision making and leadership choice. In the
United States, there is no formal membership of major parties, and activists and
supporters who register as voters for the party control selection of candidate
through primary elections. Given the character of the political parties in western
democracies, the spread of literacy, the impact of media in promoting enlightened
public discourse, and a non-hierarchical, non-clannish social structure, parties had
to necessarily disperse power. While the influence of party loyalties and
leadership’s views is quite significant, the central party or leadership does not
exercise any real control over the local unit and members. Barriers of entry into a
political party or expulsions at will are almost unheard of. Parties successfully
attract and recruit enlightened and talented citizens into their fold and promote
the promising members politically. Members have freedom to air their views, as
well as to oppose the leadership of the day. Many heretics like Winston
Churchill, and leaders who do not conform to party orthodoxy like Pat Buchanan
and Jesse Jackson in the U S survive and thrive in their parties. The basic
assumption is that the members control the parties. If any member espouses
views that are wholly unacceptable to the vast majority in a party, then such
majority will marginalise the maverick successfully. However, by not enforcing
conformity on the pain of expulsion, the rebels will have an opportunity to
gradually persuade a majority of members to their point of view, if they can.
Thus, parties are rescued from fossilization, and evolve with times and respond
to new challenges.
Parties as pocket boroughs
25. In India, traditionally parties have been seen as pocket boroughs of those at the
helm. Often there are entry barriers to members. Communist parties have always
had a somewhat strict membership admission procedure, which is generally
uniform in its application. The mainstream parties which are mass-based and
have no rigid membership norms, however, have been erecting barriers of entry to
all persons who are potential threats to the current leadership. While ordinary,
faceless members are admitted as connon-fodder with ease, the potentially
20
influential members are not always welcomed with open arms. Similarly, even
the faintest criticism of party bosses on any issue is taken as an act of indiscipline,
often leading to suspension or expulsion. Again, when leadership changes in the
party, the same member who was earlier punished for rebellion is welcomed back
with alacrity. There are countless instances of such disgraceful autocracy in all
major political parties in India. Mr. Arjun Singh’s expulsion from, and
readmission to, Congress is just one of the several such instances in that historic
organization whose political and organizational culture became too pervasive to
be resisted by its opponents. If imitation is the best form of flattery, then most
Indian political parties are true admirers of their traditional enemy, the Congress!
The expulsion of Mr. Ramakrishna Hegde from Janata Dal is one other such
example of unaccountable bossism in parties.
26. The political parties, which exhibit such authoritarian tendencies in
protecting the privileges of those in power and nipping in the bud any potential
threat to individual dominance have not shown the slightest sense of shame or
remorse in assiduously cultivating and recruiting known criminals, corrupt
persons and charlatans and rogues. Such shady elements are courted and
welcomed, while decent and dignified citizens are shunned and often rejected.
No major mainstream party has any published membership rolls. Spurious
membership and disputes arising out of it are only too well known to all of us in
respect of major political parties. As a net result, parties have often become a
collection of greedy, corrupt and unscrupulous persons, who are willing to use
any method, however ugly, immoral, violent or brutal, to perpetuate their hold on
state power. By virtue of entry barriers and expulsion powers in the hands of
party bosses, no real rejuvenation of parties with injection of fresh blood is
possible. All idealistic, talented youngsters are often repelled by the parties, and
undesirable elements find a haven in them.
21
Freedom vs discipline
27. A question then arises: What is the dividing line between freedom and discipline
among the members of a party ? The practice in liberal democracies shows us that
the greatest safeguard of public good in a democracy lies in the trust in the
majority view, and respect for the minority view. Instead, if every rebel is
expelled on spurious or sometimes seemingly valid grounds, then all dissent will
be stifled. As we have seen earlier, there is no realistic possibility of meaningful
political action outside political parties for citizens in any democracy. A party is
not the private estate of any individual or coterie that happens to be at the helm at
a point of time. There is enormous investment of energy, effort, passion and
hopes of millions of people over time in a political party. A party is a creature of
history, struggles and sometimes sacrifices of thousands of people. Historical
memories and emotional attachments go into a political party’s invisible bank.
Consequently, successful formation of a new party with any significant impact is
a rare exception, and is not a realistic option for most citizens most of the time.
Allowing any party to become captive of a coterie or an autocrat, and expelling
members at will, is antithetical to the very notion of democracy, and is dangerous
to the health of parties.
28. However, we must also recognise the needs of cadre-based, ideology–driven
parties. Therefore a fair reconciliation would be to make all membership open
and accessible to all. If a party insists on reasonable qualifications and scrutiny,
such scrutiny should be objective and uniform, and should be justiciable if there is
allegation of unfair discrimination. The US example shows that General Dwight
Eisenhower had no prior party affiliation. He chose the Republican Party and
accepted its nomination for presidency on the ground that his father belonged to
that party! In an open and free system which prevails in the US parties, he could
as easily have become a Democrat, and accepted that party’s nomination for
presidency! Similarly, Gen. Colin Powell could have chosen to be a member of
either major party and bid for presidential nomination immediately, if he so
22
desired. Such free and open criteria for membership _ and if the party chooses to
be selective in recruiting members, then uniform, fair, non-discriminatory and
non-discretionary criteria for membership _ are vital for the health of our
democracy. Similarly, as a rule expulsions should be prohibited. Rebellion can
be controlled by the majority marginalising a maverick, and not by throttling
dissent. If a party deems it necessary to have the provision of expulsion in its
constitution, then the grounds for such expulsion should be explicitly listed.
Criminal record of a member, corrupt conduct, or moral turpitude can be grounds
for expulsion, and not vague ‘anti-party activities’. Any such disciplinary action
even if provided for in the party rules, should be subjected to judicial scrutiny if
the member so desires. Only when we have such democratic mechanisms will
expulsions cease to be tools to perpetuate bossism in parties, and to purge
inconvenient elements.
Leadership choice
29. In all mature democracies, party leadership in chosen openly and democratically.
Democracy is the only system in which leadership has to be constantly nurtured,
renewed and when necessary, rejected. If leadership is thrust on a party or a
people, or if it is acquired by brute force or hereditary succession, it cannot be
democratic leadership by any standard. If leadership, once elected by the free will
of members, is not open to constant and public challenge, such leadership tends to
perpetuate itself and becomes unaccountable. These basic principles are accepted
in all democratic decision making and followed scrupulously by all major
political parties in the democratic world. A brief survey of the British and
American political parties shows how inner party democracy flourishes in their
functioning.
30. In the British Conservative Party, leadership is decided by the elected Members
of Parliament. The peers in the House of Lords have no role. The incumbent has
no advantage in leadership contest, and in fact suffers a handicap. The incumbent
23
leader has to obtain 15% more vote than the majority requirement. If this
condition is not satisfied, a second ballot is held, in which overall majority is
required for election. Election is by secret balloting. The removal of Mrs
Margaret Thatcher from party leadership in 1991 is a good illustration of how the
system works. Mrs Thatcher won a record three consecutive general elections,
and served as Prime Minister for 13 years with great distinction. In many ways,
she changed the face of Britain, and decisively changed the course of British
politics, and in some ways global politics. And yet, her leadership could be
easily challenged, and she had to face an election in 1991. Michael Heseltine, a
member of her own cabinet earlier, was the challenger, and she won a
comfortable majority of votes. Yet, she was not elected as party leader, since she
could not obtain the 15% extra votes needed for a victory on the first ballot. She
was entitled to contest the second ballot, in which she would have probably won
by a majority. However, she bowed to the pressure of her patrymen , who felt
she might be a liability in the next general election on account of her poll tax
proposals, and resigned. John Major won the ensuing leadership contest with
Thatcher’s support and assumed the office of Prime Minister. Michael Heseltine
assumed high office in John Major’s cabinet. This model study of inner party
democracy shows how civilized and free the process is in mature democracies.
Similarly, the leader who loses the general election is expected to step down, and
usually does so. John Major’s resignation as party leader upon losing the general
election in 1997 is a case in point.
31. In the British Labour Party, leadership is decided by election in the National
Executive Committee. The electoral college for leadership comprises of three
groups with equal weightage _ the party’s elected MPs, affiliated organizations
and individual members. The earlier system of excessive weightage to trade
unions was reformed, and the party functioning is made more democratic and
fair. The leader is usually expected to resign when the party loses a general
election. Neil Kinnock, who rejuvenated Labour Party and made it a strong
fighting machine, resigned in 1992 upon Labour’s narrow defeat in the general
24
election. Later, on the death of the new leader John Smith, Tony Blair was
elected to Labour Party leadership, reformed the party, and successfully led the
party to an overwhelming general election victory. Again, we see the triumph of
democracy. Similarly, Liberal Democratic Party, launched in 1988 with the
merger of Social Democrats and the Liberal Alliance, chooses its leadership at
various levels through transparent, democratic procedures. Elections are held on
one member, one vote principle for party leadership, presidency, parliamentary
candidates and party conference representatives. The party conference, whose
representatives are elected, in turn elects the party leader.
32. If a party wins the general election, the party leader becomes the Prime Minister
and heads the government. Not only is leadership decided democratically, and
challenged periodically, but democratic procedures are scrupulously followed at
various levels in the party. The parties never impose their will or control the
regional or local units. In fact, it is the will of the local party members and
pressure from them which often leads to policy changes and leadership
challenges. At no level is a local or regional leader nominated by the party’s
central leadership. The local and regional party units are locally elected. The
party’s national conference, which lays down policy, prepares a platform for
general election, and elects party leader, itself comprises elected representatives
of local and regional units. In effect, the parties function the way they ought to in
a democracy; the grassroots units elect, influence and control the central units,
and not the other way round.
33. In the United States, parties have no formal membership. The party nominee for
presidency is elected at a National Convention, whose delegates are themselves
elected on the basis of primary election results. The nominee, and if elected to
office, the President, is the leader of the Party. He shapes policies as President,
and influences the party to some extent. He is himself bound to enter the
primaries in the next election if he wishes to bid for office again. The national
party leadership has absolutely no control over, or role in, the affairs of the State
25
and local party units. In fact, it is the local and State members and delegates, who
play a role in nominating the congressional and presidential candidates. Parties
are totally decentralized. The personality and popularity of a President are the
only assets which he can use skillfully to shape policies and influence the thinking
of his partymen. The whole democratic process is totally open. With the demise
of the urban Democratic Party electoral machines, and a series of reforms
introduced over the years, the most notable of which is primary elections, parties
have become totally open with ill-defined membership, and any registered
democrat or republican can bid for nomination without any formal party support
base. In Canada also, party leader is elected at the national convention, in a
process somewhat similar to US presidential nomination.
Absolute control
34. The contrast could not have been starker in Indian political parties. As a
perceptive political observer commented some years ago, in Indian political
parties, ‘the man who wears the crown is the king’. Leadership is often acquired
through undemocratic means and retained by the power of patronage, nomination
and expulsion, rather than the support of members. This paved way for
oligarchies and unaccountable and unelected coteries dominating and
manipulating the political process. Party leadership, however illegitimate the
ascent to it may be, gives total control of the party apparatus and resources.
Through total monopoly over candidates’ choice, the leadership’s access to, and
control over, levers of state power is complete and unchallenged. Given the fact
that most parties are dominated by only one leader, and not even a small group,
‘monarchy’ is the correct description of party leadership. Often, as seen most
glaringly in Congress and several regional parties, leadership is bequeathed by
blood or marriage ties, and therefore ‘hereditary monarchy’ is not an inaccurate
description. Most major parties have constitutions which prescribe some form of
election for leadership. However, elections are rarely, if ever, held. Congress
Party conducted organizational elections only once in the last four decades. When
they were conducted, there were serious incidents of bogus voting, violence and
26
rigging; there were countless allegations and counter allegations, and a few
election matters went to court. Even with packed delegates, regular election to
party presidentship was held only twice in 46 years. On all other occasions,
there was only anointment of an unelected absolute leader, or installation of a
puppet president. Once in office, the power of leadership is absolute, and control
of resources is awesome. Any potential dissidence or principled opposition is
instantly snuffed out. Suspension, expulsion, instant removal from office, denial
of party tickets, all these and more weapons are fully available to leadership if
there is any whiff of opposition. If the party is in power, state machinery is used
for party ends, and more often to perpetuate absolute control over the party and
state, with cynical disregard to propriety and public good. All positions in the
regional and local units are nominated by the party leader. Every party
functionary owes his or her position to the grace and good will of the ‘High
Command’. Myths and images are assiduously propagated to perpetuate personal
power. No other party functionary or leader is allowed to share the limelight.
The moment a local or rival national leader is gaining in popularity, he is
immediately cut to size, removed from office, and if necessary expelled from the
party to deny him a political base, and force him into political wilderness.
35. This absolutism practised over the years by the Congress party leadership,
disregarding all canons of democracy, has sadly become the norm for most other
parties with certain minor variations. The communists officially practise
democratic centralism, and have rigid and uniform, if often undemocratic,
procedures. Most other parties have neither norms nor propriety to guide their
activities. Membership rolls are not available, and when prepared are often
spurious. Elections are not held, and if held are rigged. Musclemen often take
over party meeting and conferences at various levels, and fisticuffs and violence
are quite common. All parties, without exception, nominate candidates for public
office through the dictates of the leadership or high command. All funds are
collected clandestinely and spent at will to further augment personal power.
State level ‘leaders’ are nominated by the ‘high command’. When a party is
27
elected to office in any State, the legislature party leader, who will be Chief
Minister, is nominated by the central leadership, and formally anointed in a
farcical ‘election ‘ . Often sealed covers are sent indicating the name of the
person chosen as Chief Minister by the party leadership. There are instances in
which persons who did not command the support of even a handful of legislators
became Chief Ministers. Even candidates for public office in local government
elections and cooperatives are decided by the party’s central leadership. When
the party obtains a majority in a local election, again the zilla parishad chairman
or other functionaries are decided by the party bosses far removed from the
scene. In short, political party functioning has become totally autocratic,
oligarchic, unaccountable and undemocratic. The whole political process and all
democratic institutions are systematically subverted. Party leaders have become
medieval potentates, with the sole intent of survival in power, and bequeathing
their office to their family members or chosen successors.
Public scrutiny and regulation
36. It does not require any great analysis or insight to understand that undemocratic
political parties cannot nurture, sustain or strengthen a democratic society. The
most critical need is to reform parties and make them open, democratic and
accountable. Basic democratic principles of member control, elected
representatives from lower tier electing leadership at higher levels, open
membership rolls, fair and free elections, no power to central party over regional
and local units, easy and effective challenge to incumbents, no recourse to
expulsion or removal of potential rivals, and no nominated office holders at any
level, should be integral to the functioning of any political party. The question
then is, can the political parties be left to manage their own affairs
democratically? Past experience shows that it is futile to expect parties to become
democratic on their own. Through long years of neglect, democratic processes
have become fragile. The coteries, individuals and families controlling parties are
so firmly entrenched, that there is no realistic hope of members being allowed to
28
organize themselves and challenge the leadership and procedures. It will be
somewhat naïve to except the party leaders themselves initiating the process of
party reform, which will undermine their own unaccountable, and often
illegitimate personal power. Nor is there hope that democratic elections for
public offices will automatically force reform on parties. As the choices offered
to the public are between Tweedledom and Tweedledee, no matter which party
wins, the picture remains unchanged and immutable.
37. We as a people have an abiding and legitimate interest in the affairs of parties. As
we have seen, parties are by no means private clubs looking after their personal
interest. They are the engines of democracy and instruments of governance in
society. They seek and acquire power over us, and in reality have effective, and
unbreakable monopoly over power. The power of the party cartels cannot be
checked by forming new parties. Experience everywhere shows that the hope of
new parties emerging and spawning a new culture rejuvenating the political
process is a pipe dream. The emergence of a successful new political party itself
is a rare phenomenon in modern world. The emergence Telugu Desam Party in
Andhra Pradesh was one such rare example. A combination of unusual
circumstances – a strong-willed, extremely popular leader who became an idol to
millions as a successful film star, absence of a viable political alternative to the
dominant ruling party, people’s disgust with misgovernance and corruption, and
a strong anti-establishment sentiment have brought about a major political
change in 1983 in Andhra Pradesh . However, as events have shown, the same
new party has become a replica of Congress, and has conformed to the iron law of
Indian politics – ‘all mainstream, centrist parties imitate Congress and become its
clones’. This fate is seen in varying degrees in many parties. The Janata of 1977,
which took birth from the anger of people, and its various progeny; BJP, which
claimed indigenous cultural roots and promised a brave new world, and yet lost is
sheen in office within a few months; the regional parties like the two Dravidian
parties, whose origin was based on cultural regionalism; the Shiv Sena, which
rose out of urban middle class frustration; the many other religious, tribal, caste,
29
and regional ethnic parties with bases all over India _ all these have proved to be
no different from Congress in organizational ethos and internal functioning. Of
the three truly ideology-driven parties, Swatantra party and Socialists
disappeared, and Communists continue their policy of splendid isolation and
democratic centralism, unmindful of the tectonic shifts in global and Indian
politics.
38. From this bird’s eye view of Indian political parties, it is clear that we, as a
people, have stakes in their functioning and future. The moment they seek power
over us, and control over state apparatus, they forfeit their claim to immunity
from public scrutiny and state regulation based on reasonable restraints. This is
particularly true in a climate in which they have proved to be utterly irresponsible,
unaccountable and autocratic, perpetuating individual control over levers of
power and political organization, entirely for personal aggrandizement, pelf and
privilege. Therefore, in a deep sense, the crisis in political parties is a national
crisis, and has to be resolved by a national effort. This leads us to the inescapable
conclusion that there should be internal democracy in parties, regulated by law,
and monitored and supervised by statutory authorities. Every party, by law,
should be obligated to practise internal democracy in all respects. The details of
functioning can be left to the party’s own constitution, but it should conform to
the broad principles of democracy stated clearly in law. The actual practice of
internal democracy should be verifiable by an external agency, say the Election
Commission. Mandatory publication of membership rolls of political parties at
local level, election of leadership at every level by secret ballot supervised by the
Election Commission, a comprehensive prohibition on nominations of office
bearers or expulsion of rivals, a well-established system to challenge the
leadership of incumbents at every level, and justiciability of these internal
democratic processes through special tribunals – all these measures could form
the basis of any meaningful reform and regulation of political parties. Extreme
care and caution should, however, be exercised to ensure that a party’s democratic
choices of leadership or its espousal of policies are not in any way directly or
30
indirectly influenced by law or external monitoring agencies. The party leaders
and its policies should be judged only by the public, in the market place of ideas
and in elections.
Selection of candidates
39. In most mature democracies, there are highly democratic, systematized
procedures to select the party candidates for elective public office. In fact,
selection of candidates to represent the people adequately and to promote public
good is the key function of a political party. This function is of utmost
importance because, as we have seen earlier, in reality the election is almost
always between the candidates of major parties. For citizens intending to spare
their time and energy for public good, parties are the natural and most effective
organizations giving them access to patronage, service and influence. In keeping
with the vital nature of this task, fair, democratic and participative selection at the
local level by the constituency members is the norm. The higher echelons of the
party may, at times, influence the local party members to reject a maverick with
extreme views, or rarely to prefer a well-known figure. However, such instances
are very uncommon, and when they do occur, they are at best helpful
suggestions, and never dictates. The final decision invariably rests with the local
constituency committee or the members themselves. The party’s role is limited to
presenting a pool of potential candidates to the local people to make a choice. A
brief review of the procedures adopted by some of the major parties in established
democracies will illustrate the democratic and decentralised choice of candidates.
British practices
40. In the British Conservative Party, the candidates apply to the Conservative
Central Office (CCO). CCO then defines the pool of eligible candidates on the
basis of the quality of applications and a review of their eligibility, and prepares a
short list of candidates. Then there is a Residential Selection Board Test for
31
applicants. Those who pass the test then apply to the vacant seats in the
constituency. The Constituency Committee, comprising of the elected
representatives of the members at the constituency level, interviews the
candidates and makes the actual selection. The selection has to be approved by
the General Membership Meeting of all members of the party in the constituency.
There will be a formal endorsement of the locally selected candidate at the
national party level, which happens as a matter of routine. Occasionally, if the
choice of the local Constituency Committee is challenged, the selection is put to
vote of all dues-paying members, in a form of primary election. The decision of
the members is final. In British Labour Party, the role of the central party is
equally marginalised. The Constituency Labour Party (CLP) committee
shortlists eligible applicants, and the members of the CLP select the candidate by
voting (one member, one vote). The selection is then sent to the National
Executive Committee (NEC) for approval, which is accorded. In exceptional
cases NEC may veto a candidate, and this happened only a few times in history,
mostly to prevent communists from being put up as candidates. In Liberal
Democratic Party, applications will be made to State Committees (England,
Scotland and Wales), they are scrutinised and approved, candidates are
interviewed on ‘Selection Day’, and regional approved lists are prepared. The
candidates in the approved lists will then apply for vacant seats, and the local
executive committee short-lists the candidates. Local members of the party select
the candidate by election. The choice of local members is final. As can be seen,
the choice of candidates is democratic, fair and decentralised in all major parties
in the U.K.
Candidate selection in other democracies
41. In all other western democracies also similar decentralized, democratic
procedures are followed in selection of candidates. In Germany, the candidate
for the constituency is selected by the party constituency committee by secret
ballot. The proportional representation list of the party for the Lander (province)
32
is prepared by the party’s elected delegates at the Lander level through secret
ballot. In Norway, the elected delegates of local party units will select the
candidates for inclusion in the proportional representation list by voting, and
neither national leadership, nor provincial leaders have any control. The district
committees of each party shortlist candidates after receiving suggestions from
members and local organizations. In Sweden, all the dues-paying members are
consulted by mail ballot in a form of primary election, and the candidate who
secures maximum votes is selected. In case of Swedish Socialists, the entire
district slate is submitted to party members for voting. In Belgium, there are
internal primary elections for selection of candidates from a list submitted by
local party leaders. In Australia, State level party endorses the candidates, but the
actual selection is made by ballot among the members from a list submitted by
the State executive. In Australian Liberal Party, delegate conferences comprising
of 60% from local branches, and 40% from State party executive select the
candidates. In unitary New Zealand, in Labour Party a six-member committee,
comprising of 3 members from national party and 3 from local party, selects the
candidate in a meeting of local party members. In New Zealand National Party,
the local party chooses the candidates from an approved list submitted by central
party. In Canada, members at the constituency level directly select parliamentary
candidates in a special meeting. Membership of parties is ill-defined, and any
‘supporter’ can participate in special party meetings, in a process similar to the
US primary elections. Approval of local party executive is taken for granted, and
national party approval is not needed. Clearly, democratic choice by local
members and delegates is the universal norm.
American primaries
42. In the United States, democratic process in the selection of candidates has been
taken to the logical end, with formal procedures, and statutorily regulated
primary elections. As early as in 1913, the Progressives engineered reforms
restricting the power of party organizations. Direct primary elections were
33
introduced and conducted under State laws for selection of candidates for all
offices below Presidency. The Presidential nomination for major parties was
through a national convention to which delegates were selected through ballot in
party caucuses. In the 1970s there were major reforms in Presidential nomination
process. Now by law all candidates for Presidency have to participate in the
primary elections in 46 of the 50 States. The delegates elected and pledged to the
candidates on the basis of the vote in primaries, and elected in the caucuses in 4
States, participate in the National Convention, and elect the Presidential nominee
by open ballot. In fact, the election in the Convention is a mere formality, and
most often the outcome is predetermined, since the delegate vote is decided by
the primary election verdict. In the rare case of no candidate emerging as a clear
winner with majority vote in the primaries, there will be actual selection of
Presidential nominee at the Convention. The primary election process is strictly
regulated, and state funding is provided even in primaries, according to objective
and uniform criteria. The membership of parties is loose and ill-defined. Any
voter registered as a democrat or republican can vote in the respective party
primaries. In some States, even unregistered voters, who are ‘supporters’ or
‘sympathisers’ can vote in a party primary. Primaries are major political events
attracting nation-wide live television coverage, and often generate more
enthusiasm than even a general election in other countries. Any registered voter
can have his name included on the ballot for primaries subject to fulfilment of
certain norms. Relatively unknown candidates like Jimmy Carter, whose
national name recognition was only 2% months before the primaries, and Bill
Clinton, who was only the Governor of a small, relatively poor state of Arkansas,
could become major political figures only through a direct democratic choice of
candidates by members in primary elections, and could eventually bag the
nomination, and win the highest prize of Presidency itself. Thus party
hierarchies are completely bypassed in the nomination of candidates to
Presidency. Similar primary elections are held for nominating candidates for all
other public offices at every level, including Congressmen, Senators and
Governors.
34
Unfettered discretion
43. In India central leadership of political parties has absolute, unfettered control over
choice of candidates for elective public office. Indian National Congress, the
largest and oldest party, entered the electoral fray in the 1920s. Electoral politics
meant that there was need for local organization, machinery to choose candidates,
selection of party leaders, preparation of platforms, funds and electoral
campaigns. The party emerged soon as a truly mass based organization. The
Government of India Act 1935 expanded the realm of Indian political
participation. 1936-37 provincial elections witnessed rapid development of
Indian political parties, with Congress winning 6 of the 11 Provincial
Assemblies, and forming governments in 7 Provinces. However, despite growth
of political parties, electoral participation was very limited. In the 1920s, only
about 3% population had franchise. While it expanded in the 1930s and 40s, the
franchise was still limited, and was well under 20% of the adult population.
Therefore selection of party candidates was a cosy, private affair among groups of
landed gentry and wealthy people. With the Constitution coming into effect came
universal adult suffrage. Suddenly there was mass political participation with
hardly any struggle, and parties failed to create mechanisms to suit the new
democratic aspirations and ethos of independent India. All parties imitated the
Congress. Backroom parleys, cronyism, nepotism and politics for personal gain
became an integral feature of our political process and parties became private
fiefdoms. Selection of candidates has become the primary source of power for
unelected, and unaccountable bosses, and their minions who formed small
coteries and exercised absolute power. There has been general decay in the
quality of public life, as the moral imperatives of freedom struggle no longer
operated. As parties tasted power, greed overtook many functionaries. In the
absence of strong institutional mechanisms for enforcing transparency and
accountability and checking corruption and abuse of office, the political climate
descended to extremely abhorrent levels. In this backdrop, unfettered personal
35
discretion in the hands of party bosses and their chosen minions led to predictable
disastrous consequences.
Criminalization of politics
44. The Election Commission publicly stated that more than 700 of the 4072 State
legislators (MLAs) have criminal records against them. Several known
murderers, rapists, goondas and extortionists were nominated, and later elected, as
party candidates. There is no major State in which hoodlums and crime lords did
not assume the high office of ministers. Even among those legislators who have
no criminal background, many depend habitually on crime syndicates and muscle
men for winning elections. Money, muscle, liquor, caste and other divisive
calculi became the new determinants of power. Parties are known to have
nominated candidates in exchange for money bags. Incorruptible and dignified
partymen are sidelined systematically, and crooks and knaves are brought to the
fore. Known goondas and rowdy sheeters with blood stains on their hands, and
heinous crimes to their credit are now welcomed with open arms and great
fanfare into major political parties. Legislative and ministerial offices have
become safe sinecures for extortionists and black mailers for practising their
trades with state power and police protection. No public duty is too sacred to be
untouched by this shocking pollution. In the name of democracy legal plunder
and constitutional brigandage have become the fine arts, and law-breakers are
merrily turning into law-makers. Employees with a corrupt record, criminals
indulging in arson and loot, and rogues involved in swindles and scams are
preferred candidates of major parties. Money, muscle power and political power
– all three are locked into a vicious cycle, each feeding on the other and thriving.
The collapse of the criminal justice system, and the crude electoral process that
degenerated into a free-for-all have aggravated this dismal crisis.
36
Victory at any cost
45. At the macro level, when we examine a whole State or the country, the electoral
verdicts broadly reflect public opinion. More often than not, this verdict is a
reflection of people’s anger and frustration, and is manifested in the rejection
vote, rather than their support to a platform. However, at the local level, caste,
sub-caste, money, muscle power and crime have become the new determinants of
power. All parties are compelled to put up candidates who can muster these
resources in abundance in order to have a realistic chance of success. While
political waves are perceived around the time of election, or often in hind sight
after the polls, at the time of nomination of candidates all parties are uncertain of
victory, and would naturally try to maximize their chances of success at the
hustings by nominating those candidates who can somehow manipulate or coerce
the voters. As a net result, the elections are rigged by the parties well in advance
of polls, even by the time of nomination of candidates. No matter which party
wins in the fraudulent and farcical elections that follow, the people end up being
the real losers. This is followed by another rejection vote in the next election, and
the vicious cycle keeps repeating. Where the candidate cannot muster money and
muscle power, he stands little change of getting elected irrespective of his party’s
electoral fortunes. Increasingly in several pockets of the country, people are
spared even the bother of having to go to the polling station. Organised booth-
capturing and rigging are ensuring victory without people’s involvement.
Decentralized and democratic choice
46. This situation cries for reform of selection of party candidates. There cannot be
good governance without credible candidates selected as party candidates in
elections. Member control of choice of candidates and democratic and
decentralised selection of party nominees should be introduced for every elective
office at every level. There should be constituency committees for Assembly and
37
Parliament for every party, comprising of delegates elected by the dues-paying
members directly. These constituency committees should interview the applicants
seeking party nomination in an open meeting of members of the party in the
constituency. The constituency committee should then select the candidate in a
secret ballot. The central or State or district party should have no control over the
process of selection of candidates. If any applicant contests the choice made, in
an exceptional case there can be voting by all dues-paying members in the
constituency for selection of the party candidate. All this process of selection of
candidates should be regulated by law, and monitored by statutory authorities.
The law regulating selection of candidates should lay down the general principles
of democratic and decentralized selection of party candidates, and leave enough
room for parties to have some flexibility in adopting detailed procedures to suit
their party structure. Only those candidates who are selected by a democratic
process as prescribed by law in a decentralized manner by members or their
elected delegates should be recognized as party candidates and allotted the
common symbol approved for the party. Such regulation by law and its effective
enforcement will salvage our political process, and give people meaningful choice
at the polls.
Funding – British practices
47. Political parties require money for running the organization. Funds are needed for
running party bureaucracy, conducting research and studies for evolving policy,
launching election campaigns and myriad other purposes. In all mature
democracies, this funding is raised openly and transparently. Often there are
strict disclosure norms; the funds are invariably audited, and returns are
scrutinised by tax authorities. A brief overview of party funding in the U.K. and
U.S. will give us insights into party funding in western democracies. In the U.K.,
actual election expenses are quite limited. Parliamentary constituencies are
relatively small, with an average voter population of only about 50,000. Most
candidates have intimate knowledge of their constituents, and door-to-door
38
campaigning and small town-hall meetings are the common means of reaching the
voters. There is strict monitoring of election expenditure. In recent years, with
the advent of electronic media, annual party conferences and television
advertising have become increasingly important in moulding public opinion and
appealing for support and vote. Available information shows that the total funds
raised by the British Conservative party is of the order of 11.5 million pounds.
Of that, about 37% is raised by corporate donations, 31% from individual
contributions, and the rest from membership dues, conferences, sales etc. Labour
party raises money by contributions, affiliation payments, sponsorships of
candidates and MPs, advertisements in party publications, grants, adhoc
donations, and in kind through personnel and other resources. The government
provides funds to the parties on the basis of the number of votes the party
received in the preceding general election. This fund, which is kept at the party
level and does not go to individual candidates, is used largely for running party
bureaucracy, research and studies, and campaign advertising. In general, election
and party expenditures are modest and well within control. The expenditure for
each candidate to run a campaign is extremely low and is of the order of a few
thousand pounds. There is strict regulation and monitoring of all expenses.
American regulation
48. In the United State, the parties are loosely organised and there is no formal
membership or annual subscription. Most political activity is centered around
individual party candidates. Election expenditures are quite high because of the
accent on television advertising. Most policy research and studies are conducted
by independent and influential ‘think tanks’, which raise their own resources
through contributions, and attract considerable talent. There is often strong
support for specific causes, and several individuals, driven by their commitment
to certain causes provide funding and other support to think tanks and other
organizations. For instance, in recent years ‘Heritage Foudation’ and ‘Cato
Institute’ have spearheaded the conservative republican advocacy through high
39
quality research and analysis and well-documented policy documents which are
often treated as guide books by major sections of Republicans. Similarly
‘Americans for Democratic Action’ was once a very influential liberal think tank
closely linked to Democratic Party. Even now its publications of the voting records
of individual members of both houses of Congress are highly respected and generate
enormous research.
49. Election expenditures and political contributions are strictly monitored and
regulated in the US. Many states imposed limits on individual political
contributions by late 1950s. Campaign expenditures were limited by law in most
States, and campaign finance by candidates, party and other political committees
had to be reported by law. The Watergate revelations of the large scale violations
of law and abuse of office, and the popular outrage that followed led to ‘a wave of
reform legislation in the US on conflicts of interest, disclosure of assets by public
officials, on lobbyists and lobbying, and campaign finance.’ Earlier, in 1971, The
Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), and the Revenue Act created a general
campaign fund from tax dollars diverted by tax payers, tightened reporting
requirements, and limited media advertising. Contributions by corporations and
labour unions were always prohibited. After Watergate, in 1974, the FECA was
amended substantially imposing extensive limits on campaign spending by
candidates for Congress and Presidency, as well as spending by individuals and
groups; imposing strict limits on individual, Political Action Committees’ (PAC)
and party committees’ contributions; creating a special enforcement agency called
Federal Election Commission (FEC); providing for public funding for presidential
campaigns _ partial funding during primaries, and full funding during general
election; and strengthening disclosure norms. The Supreme Court later struck
down expenditure limits by individuals “independently” or by candidates. The
Presidential candidates however are bound by strict limits on account of public
funding norms. Thus, though huge amounts are raised by party national
committees and candidates, the expenditures are strictly monitored and fully
disclosed.
40
Funding – Indian experience
50. It is well known that in India political parties raise vast sums for their activities
and election campaigning. Election expenditure by parties and their candidates is
astronomical, considering our per capita income and the purchasing power parity
of rupee. Prior to 1969, Section 293 of the Indian Companies Act permitted
contributions to political parties. Such contribution could be upto 5% of the profit
with the approval of the Board of Directors, and unlimited with the approval of
shareholders. In 1969, corporate contributions were banned. In 1985, again
companies were permitted to contribute upto 5% of profit. Section 13A of the
Income Tax Act (I.T.Act) exempts from tax the income of a party from house
property, other sources and voluntary contributions. However, parties are bound
to maintain accounts regularly, record and disclose the names of all donors
contributing more than Rs.10,000, and have the accounts audited by a qualified
accountant as defined in section 288(2) of the IT Act. In 1978, section 139(4B)
was added to the I.T.Act by the Janata government. This provision, read with
section 13A, makes it mandatory for the political party to furnish return of
incomes every year. However, every party violated this statutory requirement of
furnishing returns if its income exceeded the normal taxable limit. It was
reported in the press that recently the BJP furnished to the tax authorities the
details of contributions received by cheque. Obviously receipts by cheque are
exceptional, and do not constitute even a small fraction of the contributions to
parties. The press also reported that on Supreme Court’s directives in a public
interest litigation filed by the Delhi-based Common Cause, the income tax
officials have sent notices to all political parties to file tax returns disclosing the
receipts and sources of contributions. So far there is no evidence of parties having
submitted these returns. The parties obviously consider themselves above law,
and there is a deafening silence from them. Predictably the party establishments
entered into a silent conspiracy to protect each other. This non-disclosure is an
invitation to corruption, extortion, and illegitimate election expenditure. This
41
brief review of the legal provisions relating to party funding and their non-
compliance by parties clearly establishes the cancer afflicting our political
process.
51. Though corporate contributions to political parties upto 5% net profits are legal, in
reality huge funds are collected from individuals and companies by extortion or as a
consideration for past or future favours. Political corruption has become integral to
our governance process. As the Jain Hawala scam, and several other scandals have
shown, large amounts of tainted money from highly questionable sources is flowing
into party coffers, sometimes directly endangering national security, and always
compromising public interest. It is widely known that most major contracts, defence
purchases, and clearances of big projects involve huge political payoffs. Election
expenses are often for illegitimate purposes. The recently raised election
expenditure limits in 1997 just before the 1998 parliamentary election imposed new
ceilings in various States. For instance the limit in Andhra Pradesh is Rs.6 lakhs
(Rs.600,000) for Assembly elections and Rs.15 lakhs (Rs.1.5 million) for
Parliamentary elections. However, in the 1970s, party expenditure has been
excluded from these ceilings. Despite recent Supreme Court pronouncements, the
situation is still ambiguous. The disclosure norms are very feeble and unenforced.
Most expenditure is illegitimate; it is spent on buying votes, distributing liquor,
transporting voters, bribing local power brokers, bribing polling agents, payoffs to
police and polling personnel in several places and hiring hoodlums for rigging and
booth capturing. Most major parties no longer attract Voluntary party workers
motivated by principles and goals, and therefore hire them at great expense during
elections. Large mobilization of poor people for election meetings spending
enormous sums for lorries and bribes to the hired audiences, and ostentatious
campaign in the form of large fleets of cars and jeeps, huge cutouts, banners,
posters, tents, loud speakers etc account for other expenditures.
42
Astronomical election expenditure
52. As a net result, the election expenses have completely gone out of control.
Outrageous sums are spent by parties and candidates illegally, and money is
recouped by corrupt deals and extortion while in power. Most candidates are selected
on the basis of the money they can spend. As a natural corollary, people with large
unaccounted, illgotten resources are attracted to political activity, and their
investment in politics yields multiple returns once they are elected to power, or gain
access to it through campaign funding. It can be safely said that out of the more than
4600 elected State legislators (MLAs) and MPs in India, about 99% would be
violating expenditure ceilings, and filing false declarations. Almost no party is
exempt. The legal penalty for not filing election expenditure returns is
disqualification for 3 years, which means the candidate can happily contest the next
election after 5 years! If the expenditure exceeds the ceiling, the penalty is 6 years’
disqualification. There is no known case of successful imposition of this penalty.
The loopholes in law are too many, and enforcement in non-existent. In the last
parliamentary election, it is widely believed that there are at least a dozen
constituencies in Andhra Pradesh in which the expenditure of both major party
candidates together was of the order of Rs.5 crores (Rs. 50 million) or more. In a few
constituencies, the total expenditure of the two leading candidates together exceeded
Rs.10 crores (Rs.100 million), and in one case it was said to be close to Rs.20 crores
(Rs.200 million). It can be safely said that in none of the 42 constituencies has the
expenditure been less the legal ceiling of Rs.15 lakhs (Rs.1.5 million) for the major
party candidate, and almost everywhere the leading candidates spent about Rs.1
crore(Rs.10 million) or more. It is estimated that the total expenditure of the
major party candidates in parliamentary polls all over the country is of the order of
about Rs.1500 crores(Rs.15 billion). Knowledgeable insiders believe that in the next
elections for the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly due in 1999, the candidates of
the major parties will be spending on an average nearly Rs.1 crore(Rs.10 million)
each, while the legal spending limit is only Rs.600,000. Almost all this expenditure is
43
undisclosed, and illegitimate. These figures reveal the ugly face of our politics and
electioneering.
53. Clearly, the situation is alarming and calls for major reforms in party funding and
campaign expenditure. Several proposals are made for realistic spending limits, tax
credits for political funding with strict limits and disclosure norms, severe penalties
for violating norms, compulsory audit of party funding and candidates expenditure
by external regulatory agencies, and other relevant regulations with practical and
effective mechanisms for enforcement. In addition, candidates and parties should
be provided by law free and equitable access to all radio and TV channels during
election campaign, to facilitate easy reach and effective campaigning. Parties are
very reluctant to bring in these reforms, even as they show great enthusiasm to
receive public funds without being accountable. In the present condition, public
funding of parties is much too complicated and cannot be considered until there is a
major party reform and regulation and monitoring of election expenditure, along
with other vital electoral reforms.
Party Whip
54. Let us now briefly examine the Tenth Schedule of the constitution, incorporated by
52nd Amendment popularly known as the Anti-defection Act. These provisions have
a major bearing on parties, public discourse and legislative and parliamentary
voting. The Anti-defection Act was obviously well-intentioned, and was meant to
ensure that the people’s mandate is respected, and elected legislators do not violate
the trust reposed in them by the public. Candidates are generally elected on the
basis of the platform and a party, and their defection, often in return for money or
favours, is a gross insult to democracy. However, the Anti-defection Act
completely failed to prevent defections. There are countless instance of defections
in Parliament and State legislatures since 1985, after the law came into effect. The
only novel feature now is that individual defections invite disqualification for
legislative office, and therefore there is no incentive for such defection. However,
collective defection is now legitimate and amply rewarded. The provision that if 1/3
44
legislators defect, it is a split in the party and is permissible is a classic case of
missing the wood for the trees. It is tantamount to saying that if an individual
commits a murder, it is a crime; but if a group does it, it is perfectly legitimate! As
a result splits are engineered, and constitutional coups are planned with meticulous
precision, and careful conspiracy. Politics is reduced to the ugly numbers game in
the legislature, without any sense of fairness, principle or obligation to the
electorate. At the same time, as the Uttar Pradesh case of defections by Bahujan
Samaj Party legislators showed, partisan Speakers can actually create new
arithmetic, hither to unknown to man! In effect, the anti-defection provisions have
completely failed in achieving the intended result.
55. There is, however, one major unintended result of the Anti-defection Act. Once the
law provided that violation of party whip on any vote attracts disqualification,
party legislators who may honestly differ on a piece of legislation are now forced to
submit to the will of the leadership. The ill-conceived legislation on muslim
women’s maintenance after the Supreme Court verdict in Shah Bano case is one sad
example of such a case. An even more shameful episode is the whip issued by
Congress Party to its MPs in the impeachment case of Justice Ramaswamy.
Parliament sits as a court while deciding on impeachment matters, and only
evidence of wrong doing and the judgement of individual MPs should matter. Party
whips have no place on such issues, and are manifestly illegitimate, and are
probably unconstitutional. However, once the law gives the same enforceability to
all whips, the legislators have no choice but to obey, or risk disqualification. As the
passage from Dummett points out earlier (para 21) we cannot allow such a
conspiracy of a group of individuals in the name of a party to distort all public
debate and legislation. By throttling legislators and preventing them from giving
concrete expression to their legitimate views, Anti-defection Act made them
captives to irresponsible party leaderships in an already authoritarian and
unaccountable party hierarchy. Thus all dissent is stifled and smothered, whereas
collective plunder of the state goes on merrily unchecked. At the same time
defections continue in a systematic and organised manner, thwarting people’s will.
45
56. Obviously major reforms are needed in the anti-defection provisions if we are to
preserve even the limited sanctity of electoral verdicts. All defections, by
individuals or groups, should incur automatic disqualification. If there is indeed a
legitimate split of a party, it should first take place in the formal party organization
with adequate public notice and through voting. Only after a party splits in a
transparent and public manner after a statutory public notice of, say at least one
month, and after the members of the party are allowed to vote on that at every level,
can the legislature party reflect such a split. A sudden overnight change of heart by
a group of legislators and midnight meetings with the President or Governors cannot
be recognised as split of a party, no matter what proportion the ‘splitting’ members
constitute. All such legislators who split from a party and form a separate group
after the transparent party process should be prohibited from holding ministerial
office for at least one year from the date of such split. Any other defection or
leaving a party to join another party during the legislative term should incur
automatic disqualification irrespective of the number of members resorting to such
defection. The Election Commission should be the competent body to decide on
disqualification, instead of the Speaker. The other major reform required is limiting
the scope of whip under Anti-defection Act to only such issues, voting on which
might bring down a government. Only on a no-confidence motion, or a finance bill,
the defeat of which will force a government to resign, should party whip be
operative. A whip in all other circumstances should be prohibited by law. Fears of
large scale indiscipline in legislative matters other than those affecting the fate of a
government are highly misplaced. The party leadership has several inducements to
offer, and penalties to impose on dissenting members. Therfore only conscientious
objectors and honest dissenters on a specific issue will usually vote against the party
position. Such freedom of voting is the essence of representative democracy.
Electoral reforms
57. In order to be able to achieve the desired result of improving the quality of our
governance, political party reform should be accompanied by appropriate electoral
46
reforms. Without going into the merits or demerits of our present plural majority
system, often called the 'first-past-the-post system,' I would like to outline a few key
reforms in the process of election itself. Essentially there are three major flaws in
our electoral system _ inability to prevent known criminals from entering the
electoral fray; uncontrolled, abnormally high and illegal election expenditures; and
the serious flaws in the polling process which permit and reward booth capturing,
rigging and personation on a large scale. The reforms required to control and
monitor election expenditure and to enforce disclosure norms have been already
discussed in paras 52 and 53. I will now briefly touch upon the other two key
reforms required. Criminalization of politics has assumed alarming proportions and
the present legal provisions have clearly failed to curb it. Sections 8, 8A and 9 of
RP Act, 1951 lists an impressive list of offences, conviction for which disqualifies a
person from contesting elections for a period of upto six years. However, there are
two major problems which have cropped up over the years. Firstly, given the
judicial delays, the criminal trials take a long time to end in convictions, even after
charges are framed. Secondly, there are many known hoodlums, goondas, rowdy-
sheeters, history-sheeters and habitual offenders whose dossiers are maintained by
the police, but who may not have been convicted for the offences listed under RP
Act 1951. In addition, the election authorities have been very lax in implementing
the disqualification provisions by wrong interpretation of the proviso in Section 8
(4) of RP Act,1951 which provides for immunity from disqualification for sitting
legislators until appeals are disposed of. This latter mistake has been belatedly
rectified by the EC in 1998. Given the magnitude and the spread of criminalization
of our political process, the following additional reforms are required to prevent
entry of criminal elements into electoral politics:
1. Life long disqualification of persons convicted for offences listed.
2. Disqualification of persons against whom charges have been framed after
preliminary enquiry, and after a finding of sufficient prima-facie evidence by
the appropriate judge; such disqualification should last until the person is
acquitted honoroubly and declared innocent.
47
3. Disqualification of all rowdy-sheeters and history-sheeters until such names
appear in the police records, subject to judicial scrutiny of such lists, and a
provision for judicial appeal for deleting names wrongfully entered.
4. Automatic expulsion and disqualification of sitting members of a legislature
upon conviction for the offences listed, irrespective of a pending appeal.
5. Permanent disqualification of habitual offenders, if they have been convicted
for minor offences three times or more.
58. Another area of electoral reform that needs to be addressed immediately pertains
to the actual conduct of polling. Electronic voting; compulsory voter identity
cards; and automatic repolling on proven personation to a tune of 5 or more votes
in a polling station or 1% of valid votes polled are the three immediate reforms
which will improve the quality of elections. Happily, the Election Commission
(EC) has the power to implement all these three reforms, without any change in
the electoral law. Section 61A of the RP Act, 1951, incorporated in 1989, gives
the EC the power to introduce electronic voting. The results of electronic voting
in the recent elections to State Assemblies in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and
Delhi have been satisfactory. The EC seems to be moving towards full-scale use
of electronic voting machines in all polling stations in future elections. This is a
desirable move, and should be welcomed by all. A major initiative was launched
a few years ago for introducing voter identity cards, and making them compulsory
for voting. About 80% of the cards have been distributed so far. Huge
expenditure was already incurred. However, there seems to be no sense of
urgency in completing the task and making it mandatory in future elections.
Introduction of mandatory identity cards for voting is the single most important
step in cleansing the polling process and preventing rigging and personation. All
thinking sections should take up this cause and ensure complete coverage and
mandatory use of voter identity cards without further delay. The third step
pertains to personation. All electoral malpractices other than buying votes and
coercion of voters lead to some form of personation or other. Whether it is
rigging, stuffing of ballot boxes, personation, booth capturing with connivance of
48
polling personnel or by coercing them, and other methods of forcible or
fraudulent polling _ all result in personation. Personation means that a ballot
paper is cast by someone fraudulently, by falsely claiming the identity of another
person. In such cases, the person in whose name such a false vote is cast is
entitled to a 'tendered vote' upon establishing his true identity. However, this
tendered vote is sealed and is not inserted in the ballot box. It is never opened or
counted unless there is a court order in an election petition. In effect, the false
vote cast by impersonation is counted, and the legitimate vote is merely kept in a
sealed cover. Automatic repolling should be ordered whenever such tendered
votes exceed, say 5 in number, or 1% of the valid votes polled in the polling
station, and wide publicity should be given to such a measure. Then most honest
citizens will feel that it is worth their while to go and cast their votes, and even if
already personation took place, they can insist on a tendered vote. Once repolling
is mandatory wherever the tendered votes exceed a certain number, then there
will be no incentive to rig polls by personation, booth capturing or stuffing of
ballot boxes. These simple steps, which are within the competence of the EC,
will make a significant difference to the purity of our electoral process.
Political Development Index (PDI)
59. Before concluding, let me make a proposal for strong citizens’ initiatives to monitor
and publicise the functioning of political parties. In any democracy, the people are
the ultimate sovereigns. Political parties and other political and state institutions are
meant only to serve the public. Given the peculiar problems of representative
democracy in large societies, political parties have become pre-eminent in
representing the people in the councils of government. Therefore if the people,
who are the true masters, fail to monitor the actions of their agents, then the agents
go berserk, as it happened in case of the political parties in India. If we recognise
that political parties are vital for the working of the constitution, then it follows that
we, as citizens, should pay utmost attention to the state of health of these parties. As
L.C. Jain points out, ‘the prevalent and increasing cynicism about our political
49
parties should be a matter of deep concern to all thinking citizens’. Sri Jain suggests
that credible people's initiatives should develop what may be called the Political
Parties' Development Index (PDI), analogous to the Human Development Index
(HDI). HDI has served a very valuable role in activating different countries to the
need for paying more resolute attention to human development policies and
programmes in order to improve the quality and well-being of the individuals and
communities constituting the nation. By its comparative ranking of different
countries annually in terms of progress made in selected areas of human
development, HDI has come to exert a subtle but sure pressure on most
governments. A similar effort needs to be made to develop and improve PDI, and
apply it as a non-partisan tool to build public opinion for reform in parties. In
particular, openness and fairness in membership, leadership choices, candidate
selection, internal democracy, funding, performance in public office, decentralized
functioning providing for member-control, the party's implementation and sustained
advocacy of its own ideology, manifesto and declared priorities and policies, and
other relevant indices could be the basis of PDI. We could also compare PDI of
political parties in India with the indices of parties abroad considering the same
parameters - say the UK and South Africa. Such global comparison will help us to
put things in perspective.
Conclusion
60. In conclusion, let me state unequivocally that it is by no means my contention that
political parties are the sole cause of our crisis of governance. As is now well-
understood, the Indian governance crisis is all-pervasive, and stems from the all-
round failure of institutions of state and political parties. Good behavior is not
rewarded and bad behavior is not punished in our system; indeed good behavior is
often penalized and bad behavior is rewarded consistently and extravagantly! In our
scheme of things, public authorities have severe restrictions in promoting public
good, whereas there is no check on abuse of power for personal gain and patronage.
There are any number of legitimate alibis for non-performance, whereas there are no
50
effective systems of accountability. As a result of the near collapse of governance, the
people are rejecting the parties in power with unfailing regularity and often
resounding negative verdicts. Resolution of this crisis is possible only through major
governance reforms including electoral reforms to attract the best men and women
into the political process and to ensure free and fair elections; renegotiation of Union-
State relations; effective local governments and direct empowerment of citizens as
stake-holders; redefinition of the interface between executive and legislature,
particularly at the state and local levels; major bureaucratic reforms in recruitment,
tenure, placement, transfer and disciplinary procedures; extensive judicial reforms to
make justice speedy and efficient; and creation of systems of accountability and
fairness including freedom of information, insulation of crime investigation and
prosecution from political manipulation, strong and effective anti-corruption
mechanisms and severe penalties for subversion of constitutional process.
61. However, while political parties are not exclusively responsible for our crisis, the
parties have a lot to account for. Even more importantly, parties are the only
effective vehicles through which major governance reforms can be engineered within
the framework of the spirit of our Constitution. The greatest tragedy of contemporary
India is that political parties have lost the vision and will to lead the nation out of our
present morass. Shibboleths, hackneyed slogans, propagation of myths, and
perpetual mass deception have become substitutes for enlightened public discourse.
Parties have largely become bankrupt with little moral legitimacy or intellectual
resources. In this scenario, the first great task of national rejuvenation lies in
reforming the political parties by democratising and transforming them into potent
instruments for democratic reforms and effective and good governance. For too long,
the general public fell prey to the false notion assiduously spread by interested
partisans, wheeler-dealers, and political players that parties are private organizations.
We should mount a relentless public awareness campaign to make people, and
ordinary, innocent members of political parties realize that the moment an
organization seeks and bids for power, the public has enormous stakes in its
functioning. The only feature that distinguishes political parties from other
51
organizations is their avowed pursuit of power and control over levers of state.
Therefore, they should conform to basic norms of democracy and should be subject to
fair regulation to ensure internal democracy and public scrutiny.
62. Any complacency in this vital task of reform of political parties will be disastrous to
our polity and public interest. Undemocratic, ineffective, unaccountable political
parties are lethal to the spirit of our constitution and undermine all democratic
institutions and state structure. It is somewhat naïve to hope that party bosses will
initiate and pursue reforms which will expose their own illegitimacy and undermine
their personal power and privilege. The time has come for a people's movement to
democratize political parties and transfer power where it should belong, viz the
ordinary members and citizens. Reform and rejuvenation of our political parties is
the first and most vital step in our struggle for holistic democratic reform to build a
strong, self-governing, just India with all citizens enjoying peace, freedom, harmony
and dignity.